Posted 5 years ago on Nov. 27, 2011, 4:51 a.m. EST by GypsyKing
(8719)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

All the focus on the federal reserve system as the villan in the current crisis of world economic instability is either misguided, or simply a diversion. The role of the fed. since the great depression has been to stabalize our ecomomic system. To the extent that that role has been changed/corrupted, it is due to no inherent fault in the existance of, or creation of, the fed. itself, but due to the corruption of it's valid role. The argument is like saying that because some hospice facilities have been guilty of abuse, there should be no care for the old and the infirm. Thus the argument that our problems are created by the fed. begs the question - who corrupted it, and why?

I hardly need bother explain the implication of this question to those legitimately on this forum. But I'll go ahead anyway . . . the 1%?

254 Comments

Hey genius, find the word bank in the constitution. You can't that is because it is not a branch of government. It is a bank and banks do not loan money to our government or anyone else out of the goodness of their hearts. they do it for interest. As long as a bank also has a monopoly on money creation there will never be enough to pay the debt it is simple math.
P = principle I = interest PI > P there can never be enough money to pay the national debt. If we returned every Federal Reserve Note in existence back to the FED we would still owe the interest, they are the only ones that can print more money. The only way to pay is to borrow more, incurring more principle and interest. Right or left wing have no bearing on this issue. It is not just the FED all the central banks in the world use the same system.

I want the Fed to go but I am not a Tea Party advocate nor do I support RP on a gold standard for money. I think currency should be decentralized and local currencies based on available resources should compete with each other. Basing our money on gold would just keep the people that are rich now in place. They have the gold. They would be able to inflate or deflate currency by introducing more gold to the open market. I also do not believe in individual land ownership. Find a tea bagger with that view. Land, air, water, and food should never be taxed. They are basic human rights. Health care is debatable but I think it is a right as well. Land should not be owned or charged for, instead it should be registered to prevent chaotic claim jumping. Leaving the land negates your registration. Not putting the land to practical use also negates registration. some land in this system would also be nature preserve where walking is allowed but no hunting or fishing or development. A place for nature to replenish it's populations.

Not only is focus on the Fed a red herring, but it puts the movement at high risk of being infiltrated by domestic terrorists and federal agents. OWS supporters need to oppose anti-Fed demagoguery. "END THE FED" extremists are not to be trusted.

So? I have long been a critic of the Fed. Does that make me a neo-nazi? I resent that. Do you deny that there are valid reasons to criticize the Fed? What purpose does your post have other than to cast undeserved aspersions upon well-meaning participants?

Perhaps I would be suspicious if I thought neo-nazis brought this issue to the forefront. I guess you can be pre-occupied with these groups, but I pay them no heed whatsoever. Seems hypocritical to try to foment hatred in this way. I can't stop you, but I can hope few fall for your rather transparent scheme. Why are you doing this again?

Actually, Nazi-sypathizer Henry Ford was one of the first to demonize the Fed. Ford actually spread anti-Semetic conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve. In addition, the major figures in Austrian economics also had ties to fascism and the confederacy. So, your views have ties to racism and fascism. Sorry :o)

I get it now. You are a gatekeeper. First I am a neo-nazi domestic terrorist, now I hate Obama and unions and am a member of the Tea Party? You sure seem to think you know a lot about me, yet, I have no hatred of Obama, am a union member, and have yet to express any love whatever for the co-opted tea party.

You are a name caller who has subscribed to the conspiracy that critics of the Fed are neo-Nazi domestic terrorists and federal agents out to subvert the occupy movement.

Nice, but I don't buy your conspiracy theory.

And as to the drama, you brought it to this post. Go back to your domestic terrorist/federal agent conspiracy post with this crap.

"You're a name caller" he whines, as he proceeds to call me names. Funny, progressive tax rates and bank regulation don't have a history of being promoted by violent racists. Here's the facts about "END THE FED" extremism:

"Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, (bringing his fist down on the table) I will rout you out!"

-Andrew Jackson

The Second Bank of the United States was a prior (and less successful than the Federal Reserve) attempt of the international banking cartel to gain control of the United States. I suppose you would consider Andrew Jackson to have been an extremist?

Wow, what a great ending to this question. I think TommyNYC hit the nail on the head here. I find this argument completely persuasive. Forget about the damned Fed, and concentrate on restoring our democracy!!!

What do you mean "restore our democracy"? This country was supposed to be a constitutional republic. The pledge of allegiance says, "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands...", not "to the democracy for which it stands". At the close of the constitutional convention, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government the Constitution was bringing into existence. Franklin replied, “a republic, if you can keep it", not "a democracy, if you can keep it". The Constitution itself declares that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government", not "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a democratic form of government".

Bringing weapons into OWS is a terrible idea. The "END THE FED" meme is tied to the hatriot crowd who thinks that the way to solve their problems is by armed resistance against the government, socialists (ie. anyone to the left of them), and anyone else with whom they disagree.

That is exactly right, and the reason for this post. Don't lisen to the Paulites; find a few objective sources of their history. They have been around long enough that there is a public record. Check out who they really are and don't just believe their words. Even the devil can quote scripture

Ha ha ha..The "Federal" "Reserve" is the banks and the banks are looking to overthrow the sovereignty of our country, if it hasn't already! Look who created the 2008 mess, the banks and their minions in Washington!

Who suffers...YOU, the working class.

Look at Ireland, look at Greece...Owned by the banks and no one notices..The problem is the Banks!

I don't know if protesting is going to resolve the issue...We need to get the
Private Federal Reserve out of this country one way or another.

I agree, and yet it's just one component of the larger problem, a tiny minority of people controlling the vast majority of the world's resources; and I don't believe going after the fed is a substitute for going after that tiny minority and recovering the trillions of dollars that have been amassed from documented acts of global plunder. The fed is just their tool - we cannot bring it to justice. We can investigate/reform/close it but we can't bring it to justice, or solve our problems by trying to do so, without addressing the core problem first. There is a fundamental disconnect in this thinking. That is why I call it a red herring.

I think simply abolishing the Fed is a red herring. Restoring the Glass-Steagall Act and then reforming the Fed, with Constitutional money, would actually be the first steps in solving the economic and financial problems created by the current system.

That's right, calling the fed the problem is like calling the White House the problem, rather than the president that occupies it. This is a classic example of a red herring put forth by a demogogue to distract fron their real agenda. What is "Dr." Paul's agenda - an even more radical, perhaps literally fascist level of control excercized by the 1%! Don't but Any of that BS!

There is a crucial difference. The Constitution of the United States does call for the existence of the office of the president. The Constitution of the United States does not call for the existence of the Federal Reserve. The President can be called to act in conformance with the Constitution. Bringing the Federal Reserve into conformance with the Constitution can only be done by shutting it down.

Fascism is the merger of government and big business. One of Dr. Paul's main goals is to stop this collusion. The way he proposes to do this is by stripping government of its power to grant special privileges.

It is a tea party concept to abolish the fed but there is no danger of tea party members having a clear view of history. The fed should not be used as a piggy bank for wall street's gambling addiction and it has been since the repeal of Glass/Steagall. Personally I think America has created the best banking system in the world the fed and FDIC have given all Americans the confidence to deposit their money and believe it is safe. The problem in the past decade is we let wall street into that system so now when they speculate and loose it puts the peoples bank deposits at risk. I really don't want my money tied up with a bunch of high stakes gambling addicts and I'm telling you this as a stock trader who has traded my share of derivatives. The difference between me and wall street I that I'm willing to take responsibility for my actions and wall street expects you to bail them out.

I'm tired of this. Why are RP supporters trolls and you are not. Is OWS just for certain people with certain views. We are just as concerned about this country as you are if not more. Also we have been at this a lot longer that most of you. Name calling and censoring will get us nowhere. Do you want a cozy little leftist movement? Or do you want an all inclusive movement that unites people from various viewpoints. Get used to it because we are occupying occupy. We are here and we have just as much right as anyone else. Lets quit this petty fighting and get rid of the criminals.

They're trolls because they literally troll and spam the internet all day posting his name all over the place. Until I hear his other "real" fans distance themselves from those that are trolling or spamming every forum on the internet, I'll assume they are all trolls and spammers.

If Christians and radical religious zealots can refrain from dominating the message boards, so can you. I've looked into all of their religions, and find yours the most obnoxious. That's not to say I dislike Dr Paul(who's a good, sincere man) but I'd appreciate him more if he divorced himself from this personality cult.

It's not the personality, although that is amazing, it is the message. If he had his personality and a crummy message he would not have a following. The message brings freedom and that has gotten alot of us very excited. This movement will not stop with RP. It is an ongoing revolution that started in 2007. OWS is just now joining the party that we started.

The fed is a tool of corruption. It was not created and then corrupted over time. It was from it's inception a tool of the banking and industrial elite to harness the "benefits" of inflation.

The monetary system was "unstable" because banks were independently inflating their credit. Bank runs were the ultimate check against this practice.

Consolidating the banking system...which began in the civil war era with the pyramiding of state banks on top of national banks...continued at the turn of the century. The federal reserve system further consolidated banking by having state and regional banks required to have deposits in national banks and national banks required to be depositors of the central bank.

What this does is coordinate inflation so that the banking system as a whole inflates the money stock at roughly the same rate...which decreases the risk of a bank run because consumers have no alternative non-inflationary institution in which to deposit their savings.

It does not however decrease the risk of systemic malinvestment of resources.

Inflation distorts the link between consumption and production which are usually bound by environmental feedback.

The fed was created with subterfuge. The banking houses actually created a phony association claiming to represent midwest farmers. This was done as a pr strategy to paint the proposed central bank as a friend of the farmer and rural interests rather than a the tool of inflationary wealth transfer that it is.

The "1%" have access to unlimited money out of thin air because of this institution. It is also the institution by which perpetual wars are funded. It was never corrupted, it has been from it's inception a tool of the corrupt to consolidate their power.

It is of utmost relevance. The problem isn't that good men aren't in charge of the fed. The problem is that it was created by corrupt men...and from that seed a corrupt institution sprang.

I did not say it was created, and then corrupted over time! I swear you guys are either incapable of understading what you read, or are so emotional that you project what you want to believe into what other people say! I said it was created corrupt, was briefly reformed, and than became corrupt again. But I'm not going to argue the history. It's just a waste of time. You seem incapable of separating the concrete from the abstract, as I have pointed out time and time again, and have not yet heard one solid argument to refute that fact, and I won't hear one either either. It's a Mad Hatters tea party my friends.

You DID say that, in your ogirinal post. whatever you said in the myriad comments, you cannot expect people to read -- except those you were adressing. You have the ability to edit your posting at will, but first you will need to admit you mistake. Here is specifically where you did this:

"To the extent that that role has been changed/corrupted, it is due to no inherent fault in the existance of, or creation of, the fed. itself, but due to the corruption of it's valid role."

What your detractors (including myself) are specifically refuting is that the "existance or creation" of the FRB is not bad.

We are stating, unequivocally, contradictorily, that its existance IS and creation WAS bad.

You are right in your assertion - if what I said implied that the creation of the fed was not bad than you have me there. But that is superfluous to my overall point. To the extent that I edit comments after the fact, it is only for the sake of clairity, because I can't "see" words clearly when in the type face of whatever program is used here for composition. Furthermore, I do not consider myself infallible by any means. If I am shown to be wrong I will readily admit it. My ego is not involved here, my object is to get to the truth, whatever that may be. I don't really have any other goal or political persuasion, at least at this point. I think both parties are corrupted beyond salvation now. What I want is to figure out what we do about it. I don't hate people who follow RP, I just think they're misguided.

Nice comment, Gypsy. I hold out hope that this can turn into a valuable discussion. My assertion is that the more people find out the FACTS about the Fed, the less they believe it is operating in our best interests. You are right that there seem to be many demagogues with regards to the Fed, but you will find that with any issue. What I do believe you will also find is those of us who have studied the issues well enough to have calm, informed discussions about the Federal Reserve and its policies over the years. I WISH it was a red herring. I really do.

Well I think you are right in the manner in which you state your case. My concern has had to do, frankly with the Ron Lawlists, who use this issue as a distraction, and seem to imply that if we just abbolish the fed everything will be hunky dory and R.P. can then just waltz us all into his distopia of liberatarian enslavery. A real evaluation of the fed and it's role in corrupting world finacial institutions is welcome on my part, as long as it's minus the Paulist zombie agenda. Thaks for the comment. I think we are on the same page here.

I also derive hope from the fact that there are a few in Congress from varied political stripes who are interested in getting a little more sunlight on the issues surrounding the Feds activities over the last few years.

I get that the Fed is an abstraction. That's it's purpose, it abstracts wealth and wealth creation. It controls the symbols of wealth - ie money. And it manipulates this symbol for a distinct purpose - the benefit of those who control the institution. And this manipulation has very real effects - it transfers wealth from those on fixed incomes to those who are connected to the institution, it raises the general price level, it uncouples the connection between consumption and production.

I agree the Fed is an abstraction. Our lives are the concrete effect of accepting this abstraction as a legitimate institution.

That would have to be decided in a court of law after a through search of the public record. But crimes there are, and many, even though some were not technically crimes because Congress was bought-off to allow them. Here we get into complex legal territory, but the point is that the corruption itself must stop. There is only one power capable of accomplishing this - us. We will either succeed, or lose our last opportunity for human survival. So although the path is narrow and the mountain steep, we must replant our flag at its summit - the genuine flag of the ideals of our founders. It is, without exageration, the only hope for the survival of the human race.

That would be a very good idea, but we still have the eight hundred pound gorilla standing in our way. The big banks and their unethical ties to government that should be in the hands of the people, which prevents us from making such changes.

Well, if you can find a way of establishing a competetive currency without ending up in Sing sing, I will be sore amazed. The implications of that take me out of my depth at the moment, they would be so complex and unpredictable.

Well, notice I said PARALLEL currencies. I don't wish to end the current system abruptly, as I fear that would hurt the least of us most. I would rather see more democratic and decentralized alternatives that can be used locally as a hedge against global financial volatility.

I don't think we need to replace it, we need to reform it; like every other part of our totally corrupted institutions, God help us!

The institutions themselves are not at fault, if fact in America they have long proven to be resiliant (sp) and sound - it is that they have been coopted by a tiny minority to work in their interests alone, at the expense of everybody and everything else on this planet. We must get those people out of the way if we hope to save ourselves the world's ecosystems and consequently the human race.

Its a diversion. The right-wing have long known that if you set up a target that is too big to knock down that many people will waste decades trying to do that which has little to do with actually solving their problems.

Right and left wing is a diversion, it gives the illusion of being able to "throw the rascals out" at an election....meanwhile the money monopoly continues and those who control the money monopoly remain empowered to purchase whatever stripe of politician they desire.

For me, the socio-political razor I use to dissect things is: does this require the initiation of force to accomplish?

If it does I think it's morally illegitimate. It is also inefficient - a system where people voluntarily act is in my mind more efficient than one where they are forced to act. Of course that's a matter of perspective. Force creates an efficient system for those who intend to apply it. A voluntary system is more efficient from the perspective of those who make up the consensual agreements.

Both "Left" and "Right" seem quite capable of resorting to the initiation of force to achieve some policy objective. So to me they aren't useful group identifiers. I suppose you and I differ as to what constitutes "Left" and "Right" and what the criteria for demarcating socio-political divisions are.

But in terms of this threads subject matter: I'd advocate removing the force the Fed requires to assure its existence. For instance "This is legal tender for all debts public and private" is a forced monopoly on the means of exchange. Perhaps people really do want to work for, and exchange goods with, an instrument who's value is deliberately depreciated against their interest. But I doubt they would if they weren't forced to.

Forcing or forced to do, that's the simple way I look at socio-political divisions. I think it overlaps a lot of other ways of looking at the world, but I think for me I'd like to live with less force. (I am not implying that you don't).

you are on the money with this post (no pun intended) - the end the fed argument is like a religious one - logic need not apply. if you read about the populist movement in the 1890's they went through all of this - greider"s book "secrets of the temple" is a goods place to start. suyabaa01 apparently does not read his own quotes -"Let me issue and control a nation's money, and I care not who writes its laws." - the question is who controls the fed not the central bank itself. we need the fed to be under democratic control!

i think most of this crowd really believes the nonsense that paul puts out. it is pretty obvious if you want to look at it but they do not - religious zealots is the only way i can think to describe them. you are right - it is a big distraction and an important issue

and aggressive - a bad combination! i actually think paul is not a evil guy -he certainly is not afraid to say things that make the gop right freak but still either not too bright or austrian school automaton

Oh I get it. An organization created by the worlds largest moneyed interests, in secret on Jekyll island in 1911, could not possibly be corrupt. The power to create money out of nothing will not be abused or attract corruption. They are here to protect us. Where have I heard that before? We don't trust people to choose their own medium of exchange. We are smarter and we know better. You can't clean up the FED. It did not recently become corrupted. It was conceived in corruption. It was created corrupt. How do you propose cleaning it up. I propose giving people the power to use the money they choose. Wouldn't that be pro choice. How can people be free to control their own lives when they are not even free to use the medium of exchange they choose. The big banks have enslaved us through the federal reserve. This is the heart of the issue. If we don't go for ending the FED we will accomplish nothing. It is the head of the beast.

You are right about everything but your final conclusion. The fed is not the head of the beast, the beast is "the world's largest monied interests," you quoted above. Without disempowering those interests they will simply find a way around our theoretical takeover of the federal reserve, and I don't see any way to take it over without firs disempowering that elite. You are caught up in a circuitous and illogical falacy.

I agree they will attempt to find a way around it. They will not let go of power easily. But I do not see how we can even begin to stop them while the federal reserve exists. The fredom of currency act would go a long way to end the fed.

More... the multitude OF red herrings.... goes beyond the contemplation of many, who, search in vain for answers, but then give up and settle for one red herring or another, which is of course, the 'intent'.

And I would table this. As I have and will continue to push for this. One goal? One solution, that would appeal to EVERY human being?

I agree ending the Feds is too extreme a notion by Ron Lawl. He, however, is a man of integrity and sticks to his words as long as it's within his power as president to do so. The real changes we'll see if he's elected is the troops come home and replaced with diplomats. He receives the most donations from Troops, employees of the Fed, and employees of the top 50 US contractors. He has by far more merit than any of the other candidates and he'll bring about real change.

Thank You Jesus! I found at least one Ron Lawl supporter who isn't entirely brainwashed. Unfortunately I'm too burnt out from all the others to give this post the attention it deserves, but I will when I recharge my batteries. I will always engage anyone in a genuine dialogue, when the object is to seek truth and not just keep repeating the same phrases over and over again, thinking they'll make more sense the 50,000th time around than they did the first time. So excuse me truthispower, I will respond to you later.

The FUNCTION of the FRB is to create, inflate, and pop, economic bubbles.

The PURPOSE of the FRB is to utilize these powers for profittaking by private investors.

This argument that the FRB was a 'good' idea, corrupted by bad people, is simply false. For 50 something years, wise people resisted the institution of a fiat banking system, only to have it foisted upon them in a moment of weakness.

To say that the FRB has a "valid role" is like calling a Murder valid, because otherwise the earth will become overpopulated.

Help us out here, Gypsy. It is one thing to say that "The role of the Fed since the great depression has been to stabilize our economic system," but to those who have done their homework on the subject, we can find no evidence that the Fed has actually accomplished this, and many economists over the years have shown that the Fed has done more harm than good with regards to stabilization.

Also, as a student of the various schools of monetary theory, I find no evidence that the Fed's ". . .role has been changed/corrupted. . ." from its original intent. In what way do you feel it has been corrupted?

So far as I can tell, the Fed is working exactly as designed, to serve the international money powers of the world, that own the mechanisms of our monetary system, lock, stock and barrel.

What incentive could this money cartel have to serve the common good? We have almost no control over its policies by design. Surely you've seen even the beloved Greenspan state this fact.

It is not a government agency, and is specifically designed to remove the money powers constitutionally granted the congress, and place it in the hands of the cartel. Those who understand this would like to return the money creation powers to their constitutional source:

I think it is too easy to simply decree the issue of the Fed a red herring, and lump it in with the rampant corruption we see everywhere lately within our government, and doing so smacks of propaganda and over-simplification.

If there was anything in your post or subsequent comments that would lead those who have done their research to believe you understood the Federal Reserve System at all, we could begin discussing your assertion.

But I can't find anything you've written that demonstrates you have a grasp on the history, make-up or operation of the Fed, and therefore find little reason to address your primary contention that it would be just fine, if it were not, as you say, corrupted.

You said it! The fed is working for the international money powers! Now, should we go after the fed, or the international money powers, who are in fact human beings and not abstract concepts? Do you understand the distinction?

I do understand the distinction. Have you read the Chicago Fed's "Modern Money Mechanics" at least, that lays out exactly how the Fed and Fractional Reserve Banking works? To stand behind the Fed, you must stand behind this monetary system. Do you?

Of course I don't "stand behind the fed", or beside it, or in front of it either. That would be a complete waste of time! I might stand in front of it protesting the 1% who actually do stand behind the fed, but to protest the fed itself would be merely silly.

You seem to want to separate the people who operate the federal reserve system from the system itself. That is fine.

My assertion is that the Fed's charter allows the people no recourse as to its operation. You can complain and protest until hell freezes about the corrupt agents within the system, but as it is currently and has always been constituted, we have no way of reforming this institution.

Do you not get this? We have no lawful recourse, save a revocation or transformation of the Fed's charter. That can only be accomplished by congress passing legislation, and the president signing it into law.

I want no such thing, you're just putting words in my mouth and won't respond to my central question. Sometimes I think I'm not even talking to real people here, but just some kind of automotons. I won't go on with this nonsense. The bigger the lie, the more you repete it, the more likely they will believe it. That is your tactic here. I'm through for now. I'll come back to this post when my patience is restored. I'll leave with this word - think very, very, hard about the consequences of misapprehending the real nature of the dilemma we are in now, for the sake of your own children, and of their children.

The Federal Reserve had more to do with the credit market collapse than the housing market. The Federal Reserve was manipulating short term rates to historic lows greatly increased the demand for housing and extended cheap credit to people that otherwise wouldn’t have qualified. So the fed had more to do with the credit system collapse.

Giving mortgages to people who should not have qualified is the reason for the collapse. This practice was enabled and pushed by changes to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 that were made in 1995, 1999, and 2005.

The need for bailouts was caused by allowing the financial institutions to become "too big to fail" which was enabled by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act which allowed the consolidation of financial institutions.

I understand that! What I am saying is that we musn't mistake the institution as the enemy for those who corrupted the institution. You must pull away the curtain and go a step deeper to see who'se behind the curtain. That doesn't seem so hard to understand to me. An example: Hitler blamed the Bundestag, the German Parliment, for the dreadful conditions between the wars. There may have been even some truth in, maybe more than some. But the problem wasn't the Parliment (or Congress) as an institution - it was the people who made up the Parliment that as an institution. As a demogogue, Hitlermaking the case that "Parliment" was the problem, and used this as a justification for disolving the Parliment. We all know the rest of the story.

We are not mistaking the institution for those who corrupted the institution. I, at least, consider both the institution itself (as laid out in the charter) as well as the individuals who perpetuate this ignoble institution. Transparency is a huge issue. I might actually change my mind that it is rogue elements within the Fed, if we had any idea what the hell was going on.

It is true that its secretive nature tends to breed conspiratorial thinking, so why not rip the lid off the thing and see what's inside?

You either didn't read, or didn't understand what I was saying. What the devil do you mean the primary dealers? If America is a casino it's because of corruption. The fed is merely an institution, which like any other institution can be either corrupt or not corrupt depending upon who's in charge of it. Therefore placing blame on the fed is nothing but a diversion from the issue of who corrupted it and why.

The primary dealers are the ones that we should be focusing on...They are literally running Europe and the rest of the world...With money that was created out of nothing other than your ability to pay tax.
JpMorgan Goldman and the like(primary dealers) virtually created the fed and the fraudulent system of fractional reserve banking..

Exactly, it is those "primary dealers," as you call them - not the fed (which is what, a pile of bricks and morter, a mere abstraction, a mere scheme without any corporal form that cannot be held to account) . . . it is those primary dealers that must be held accountable. Those people hiding behind the fed, and the corporations, and the lawyers, and the police. They are the problem for which we must find a solution!

People, open your eyes, you are being lied to in order to be used for a not very well hidden agenda, and that agenda is to actually further the interests of the primary players!

All treasury secretaries and fed executive board have been employees of each other and the primary dealers..they all share common interests... Conflict of interests!!!!!!!!Then there is the secrecy issue..They are not accountable.But you are to them....Who is the servant here???

The fed is the root of the evil and must go like all central banks in the world..

What about focusing on the !% who control all those banks, who use them to pray on us, rather than perform the useful tasks that honest, regulated banks can and must perform in a healthy republic, rather than engage in the futile activity of trying to ban banks? You think we're going to do without the circulation of money? It's not about the banks, it's about who controls them!!!

You are either stupid or FED SPY. Stop BETRAYING your nation and the humanity.

"I care not what puppets is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply."
— Nathan Mayer von Rothschild [1777–1836] — Son of Mayer Amscel Rothschild

"This worth President [Andrew Jackson, 7th US President ] thinks that because he has scalped Indians and imprisoned Judges, he is to had is way with the Bank. He is mistaken… Nothing but widespread suffering will produce any effect on Congress ... Our only safety is in pursuing a steady course of firm restrictions – and I have no doubt that such a course will ultimately lead to restoration of the currency and the recharter of the bank."
— Nicholas Biddle [1786–1844], President of the Second Bank of the United States.

"… slavery is but owning a labor and carries with it the care of the laborers, while the European plan … is that capital shall control labor by controlling the wages. This can only be done by controlling the money. It will not do to allow the Greenback [Abraham Lincoln's debt-free money] as we cannot control that."
— The Hazard Circular, July 1882. (European Bank Associations)

"Let me issue and control a nation's money, and I care not who writes its laws." as you point out very well with this quote - the issue is control of the bank and the money supply not the bank it self - we need the system to be under democratic control. this is an important issue - you need to educate yourself on the subject - Ron Lawl covers one side of the argument - there are others. if you are serious you will read more - the populist movement of the 1890's is the place to start - very poor farmers who educated themselves about money and debt! do it!

Fed is a cartel, a banking cartel. It works under the protection of the government and the government gave it a monopoly to create nation's money supply.

The problem with the Fed is, (a) it's owned private investors, (b) it creates money out thin air and our government borrows that money with interest. IT'S THE DEBT-MACHINE that sucks life out of every human being.

If you are really serious commenting on Fed, may I sincerely suggest the following educational links to start with:

no surprise but none of this is relevant to what i said. money is debt. read graeber! no point in continuing - you are a religious zealot. much of what you say is true but does not change what i said - you only know one side of the debate so you can't understand it. read graeber or greider or about populism - it has all been done before you just aren't aware of it

Did you review(all) the references I posted above? How can you say that I have the half view.

You said: "Money is debt." Are you comfortable with the DEBT-MACHINE? From your statements, you look comfortable. How can you? A nation is not sovereign if it cannot issue its own money.

You said: "the issue is ... not the bank it self". The issue is who owns the money created out of thin air:

"When you and I write a check, there must be sufficient funds in our account to cover the check, but when the Federal Reserve writes a check, there is no bank deposit on which that check us drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating money." — Boston Federal Reserve publication: "Putting it Simply"

Did you ask yourself why the Fed (a private bank) has the MONOPOLY to create nation's money? Not you and me, NOT even our State. Here is the Fed's track record:

"Since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, the U.S. dollar has lost over 95% of its purchasing power. Considering that the purpose of the Federal Reserve was to end the business cycle and preserve the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar, the Federal Reserve has been the greatest failure in American history." [ http://inflation.us/2010inflationreport.pdf ]

The sole purpose of the private central banks has been, is and will be to protect the best interest of its founding members. Not the people.

You said: "the issue is control of the bank and the money supply". Governments (because of their thirst for political power) have proved that when they control the money supply they can spend as much as they like (consider US debt, European debt crises). So I disagree with you. Control of money supply must be managed by an independent government agent not controlled by political parties. The sole role of this agent should be to measure "economic strength & growth" and should mandate how much money the government can create or pull out of existing money supply. Then the US Treasury should create (or pull back) no more than that amount.

now we are getting somewhere - who controls the money supply is a big question. what exactly the mechanism should be i can't say but it should be under democratic control - our gov't is not but it should be. isn't that the point of ows? if you read about the populist movement you will find that they tried to understand the role of money in society and how the supply should benefit the population not a rich few - sounds like we agree on that! "Control of money supply must be managed by an independent government agent not controlled by political parties. The sole role of this agent should be to measure "economic strength & growth" and should mandate how much money the government can create or pull out of existing money supply. Then the US Treasury should create (or pull back) no more than that amount."

Re: you statement "if you read about the populist movement ... sounds like we agree on that!" — sounds like a noble idea but I really didn't go there. As you quoted, my statement is about macroeconomic control of money supply, not redistribution-control of it within the society. Consider examples from the US (Fed) trying to avoid recession; and China: trying to avoid too fast growth.

not quite sure where you are coming from - sounds like you do not like redistribution within society. all of these policies have winners and losers. tight money benefits the bond holders and creditors. easy money and inflation helps the debtors. a strong dollar helps importers and weak dollar helps exporters. sounds like you do not like the banks controlling the money supply - neither do i. the money policies of the gov't should benefit the mass of the people - as far as i can see that means fiat money and inflation. and what about the fed trying to avoid recession - is that a bad thing? and china trying to slow down growth - or the swiss trying to keep their currency from appreciating - good or bad? do you know about bretton woods and currency speculation. how about the virtual senate and it's role in gov't spending? i do not think you have to look for conspiracy to see the control of the wealthy - john jay said "those that own the country should govern it" - and madison wanted to erect a gov't that would protect the "minority of the opulent" from the leveling influences of the masses. read about the creel committee - no conspiracy here - all straight forward and in the open. i could go on but i won't - looking forward to hearing your thoughts - so far this is the best discussion i have had with an "end the fed" guy - you guys got a bad rep here! seems mostly deserved so look sharp!

Here is a summary of my thought in response to your statements — we diverged a lot.

(1) In this subject I did not discuss govt. redistribution policy. That's a different topic, let's not start it here.

(2) Monetary policy should be managed on macroeconomic models. I know there are different schools of macroeconomic thoughts that impact lives of the people (Keynesian economic model, Austrian business cycle theory, ...). I didn't mention nor discuss them. That's a different topic, let's not start it here.

(3) I didn't say trying to avoid recession or excessive growth is good or bad. I gave them as "examples" of macroeconomic control of money supply.

(4) Bretton Woods system is no more in effect after Nixon unilaterally broke Bretton Woods agreement (the Nixon shock) and endorsed fiat money monetary system. It's not subject of this discussion either.

well that should about end it- not interested in reading through all this - it is mostly nonsense. inflation and fiat money are not the problem. sound money (deflation) hurts debtors and helps the money lenders - if you read graeber you will have a different view of money - money is debt - has been for 5000 years. we have gone through phases of hard money and debt systems over this time period. you are tilting at windmills. your comment about inflation cannot stand up to history or common sense.

What I'm pointing out here, is that the reason the Fed was established as a quasi-governmental agency rather than a directly administered agency was to keep the political parties from manipulating it. Congress could vote it back to the Treasury if they chose to.

Hey, thanks for the help here, I've been trying to reach the light on this issue for so long now I'm worn out and there's at least six posts in front of me that I haven't even looked at yet. Man, it's some kind of fixation, some kind of monomania. I gotta call it quits now until much later this evening. I just wish that at least some of these guys could see that it is the 1% that stands behind the fed and to blame the fed, or any other specific institution for what are entirely human actions is prima facia, rediculous.

It was the sheep cover to hide the real wolf behind it. And as I said, that function must be preserved at some non-partizan government agent as it's proven that giving governments to control nation's money supply is a very bad idea.

Do you really think that "Congress could vote it back to the Treasury if they chose to." is so easy? If you think you do, you don't understand the sheer power struggle between banskters and the governments. That power has killed many Presidents. Unfortunately I cannot give you a short-version reference. But if you're really concerned, then I may suggest you the following nonfiction documentary movie:

Your not making sense. Central banking has been voted in and out of existence several times in US history. There is no evidence that Lincolns' assassination had to do with his banking proposals. I think you may be sincere, so I'll try not to be rude, but your getting sucked into a misguided conspiracy theory.

Andrew Jackson closed the Second Bank of the United States and shortly after he luckily survived an assassination attempt. Abraham Lincoln stopped the Banking Cartel's' debt-money plans and instituted debt-free money system, but assassinated shortly after. On 1913, the Banking Cartel instituted the Federal Reserve after carefully arranged shady operations, shutting down A. Lincoln's deb-free monetary system and instituting DEBT-MACHINE. On June 4th, 1963, John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order 11110 which returned to the US Government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve but assassinated shortly after (November 22).

A Lincoln, with his unmaginably expensive, both actual cost of money and loss of life, evil war, set the stage for where we are today. This nation has never even paid the Civil War debt, much less those debts of any wars which followed!

Cost per living US inhabitant in real 1850 money? 330 million dollars.

It's the American Way! Fight wars on not even borrowed money, FIGHT WARS ON BORROWED DEBT!

Can I ask you a personal question? How old are you. Don't answer if you don't want to, but I have to wonder, how far back does your life experience reach? Do you know how things were in the 50s through the 70s.?

Well, it was suyabaa, whose age I was asking about, but no matter. You have, I think, hit upon some key points. It has indeed been Neoliberalism that has dragged this country toward the banana republic status that it is rapidly going in. I just don't see the exit from the gold standard as a contributor. The fact is, that the elites were, I believe. even more able to manipulate things in their favor when the gold standard was in place. Since you used the term, Neoliberalism, I'm going to assume you know what it is, and how it has accomplished the destruction of not ust the US, but the entire world. If not, I could probably fill you in.

Actually this information should have been in our education systems. Unfortunately the Banking Cartel also controls the academia.

If you complete Lesson 6, you will know that CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) is the very elite group of the Banking Cartel, composed of approx. 4,000 members, managing the US finance, legal, corporate, governance, military, media and academia. Watch this short clip:

None of these comments advance any logical theory against the federal Reserve Board. They are a hogpoge of wierd conspiracy theories and material that in no way applies to the matter at hand. If you have a point, make it in plain english.

To support the, here are more recent ones directly from our great men — and don't claim that you know better than them:

"It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." — Henry Ford, American industrialist

"The people must be helped to think naturally about money. They must be told what it is, and what makes it money, and what are the possible tricks of the present system which put nations and peoples under control of the few." — Henry Ford, My Life and Work, Doubleday, Page & Company, 1922

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. Both are promises to pay, but one promise fattens the usurers and the other helps the people."
— Thomas Edison, American inventor, scientist, and businessman

"I have two great enemies, the Southern army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one on my rear is my greatest foe." — Abraham Lincoln, 16th US President. He stopped bankers' debt-money plans and instituted debt-free money system, but got assassinated shortly after.

On June 4th 1963, President John F. Kennedy signs Executive Order 11110 which returned to the US Government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve. — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11110
But got assassinated shortly after (November 22).

Please, state your case in plain english rather than dodge the issue by reffering us to a bunch of propoganda. If you have a point, and understand it, than surely you can write it down. Clarity, and brevity are the chief means by which we may judge the value of a point of contention.

When you say "wierd conspiracy theories" I tried to show you that they are not. You are trying to mislead everyone with your own opinions and tried to show you that your opinions are in conflict with our great men.

You said: "reffering us to a bunch of propaganda". Is this your response to well researched nonfiction documentaries? What is the basis of your statements? Are you an expert in history or finance? Do you have any "credible" publications?

I've given you much basis for my statements, but not one of you has as yet articulated your point. I don't mind looking at a video as backing up a point, but so far I haven't heard any "point" at all. Would one of you please explain why what I have said about mistaking an institution itself for the problem, rather than the actual people behind the institution, is wrong. Because there is the point upon which the whole foundation of your arguments fall down. I will nor hear any of you refute it because it is logically irrefutable.

Let's rewind back to your initial claim: "To the extent that that role has been changed/corrupted, it is due to NO inherent fault in the existance of, or creation of, the fed."

Explain me/us what role of the Fed has exactly changed? Which part you like and which part you think has corrupted?

The second question is: why do you think that Henry Ford said: "They must be told what it is, and what makes it money, and what are the possible TRICKS of the present system which PUT NATIONS AND PEOPLE UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE FEW."? Was he a conspiracy theorist?

The problem is you RP guys just can't think for yourselves, you're just like a bunch of wind up dolls, saying "fed, fed,fed," over and over again. Not one of you has addressed my essential point, because you can't. Therefore this isn't a dialogue, it is exactly what it looks like, an attempt at Nazi bullying tactics. I'll respond to those who have at least the courtesy, or the ability, to address my esssential point, otherwise you can just go spewing your little theory to the winds.

Boy, the thought never even crossed my mind before! I'm not sure what the implications would be, aside from the ethical questions. Like I told the commentor who posted the idea, that's really going far afield for me. I would have to devote a lot more time thinking about the question than, in my opinion, it is probably even worth, given the many other practical considerations we must face to move this whole issue forward.

If the ethical implications are not important enough, how about considering the effects? I think you will find that if the Fed's ability to counterfeit, along with fractional reserve and legal tender law were eliminated, most of the problems we face today would not be possible. Rather than "far afield", I think this places the question (whether counterfeiting is a valid role) at the very crux of matters. How could the question not be worth spending any time on? How could any other consideration be "more practical"?

If you don't like the idea of attacking the institution, and think it's not inherently corrupt, would you extend that courtesy to the mafia? Or is that different because government collusion with the mafia is less overt?

Addendum: Perhaps part of the reason so many have difficulty getting to the root of this question is that so many of our social systems are now corrupt. So people look around and ask themselves, "Is it the government, Is it the corporations? Is it the banks? Is it the justce system? etc., etc. Because everywhere they look they see the same problems.

But their is one central factor that connects all these elements together. I think I will leave it to people, who are so inclined, to ask that question for themselves? Even though I am the poster, I have already come to the end of my endurance with this persistent and singular question.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
Thomas Jefferson, (Attributed)
3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

This is what the federal reserve has done. It is owned by a banking cartel. Hope you enjoy being homeless. It is not a diversion it is the heart of the problem. It has no valid role for mainstreet only for wall street.

I've attempted to post the below message on your typepad site 4 times. I just wondered if you are deciding to not post it, or if the message is not getting through to your end somehow?

Hello Benjamin,

There is much good news, and I anticipate each weelky report with bated breath. I want to be cautious in asking you a question as I don't want it to be construed as disrespect. I revere what you do with the highest regard. You are braver than most, to be sure.

In viewing your various reports and interviews I am left with the same question each time. You have touched on the answer in a couple of reports but, I have to profess, it leaves one with a sense of unease.

The WDS has wanted to move forward with the dismantling of the cabal and reset of the financial system under a "lets do this quietly" approach. With the centuries of secrecy, that has been the very essence of what has allowed the cabal to reach this level of unbridled power and criminal behaviour. I am baffled as to how the WDS thinks that more secrecy is the course by which they can achieve setting the world's people free. I must ask, how can that possibly work?

I would like to suggest that members of the WDS who have lived a very worldly life on one hand, in another way, by virtue of the security and walls around them, have been shielded from coming to know regular people, thus they have underestimated the people. They have not given us enough credit for intelligence. The WDS should not hold back any information, history, knowledge, etc. It is amazing how, when exposed to truth, people rise to the occasion. A peoples, civilizations, communities have a way of sorting out the important issues and governing themselves in the face of hardship.

Our world has gone so far off course by the evil hands of the oligarchs, that ONLY full disclosure can help us assess our past and present, so that we can make decisions about how to live a healthy future.

The process of disclosure, if it was ever really going to happen, must speed up exponentially if millions (billions?) of lives are to be saved. Making arrests along with total exposure to the masses would help speed up this process exponentially. It could only help. How could the people in power continue to rule if we all knew what they have done to us? They will have lost all credibility and be forced to step down, as no-one would do their bidding. Police officers and military would put down their guns. Information would come faster as the scoundrels know the whole world is watching and they would spill the beans on each other that much faster. The process of open justice could start immediately without the cabal being shielded by their network of cronies. Where could they hide?

Why is protecting the reputations of a few hundred criminally insane and evil people be more important than the lives of millions of good hearted and hard working peaceful people?

The oligarchs are very precarious right now. One only has to turn on the television to see the posturing and threats they are making to each other, to know that great peril could come at any moment. They will only continue this horrible game if they are not exposed for who and what they really are. The ONLY thing that will stop them is mass public exposure. They will not stop until they realize that we ALL know who they are and what they are responsible for.

The western politicians and people at the top that made or are making decisions that forever changed people's lives over the last dozen years are making their way, one by one into the media lately, treating themselves and eachother as some sort of heros of this era. Its vile to have to look at them cementing their reputations into history in this manner. Please get them off the airwaves.

The danger is imminent. The WDS knows this. With so many of this great world's people that are dying every day at the hands of these criminals, and the very real threat of millions of people about to die in the imminent future, how does the WDS justify holding on to such important and life saving information? The only conclusion I can intelligently come to is, they either have an ulterior agenda, or they don't have the bite that they claim to have. There is no answer they could give that would be good enough. I fear that it comes down to self preservation. They would have to take some responsibility for the crimes against humanity and for using the hardworking citizens of this world as their own personal welfare system for hundreds of years. That's not something they are comfortable with getting out, nor do they want to give that up. They are selfish beyond words.

If the WDS wants any credibility at all, they will need to do something so big, so monumental, that the public could not doubt any more, that there has been a ruling secret cabal that has committed heinous crimes against them. In my very humble opinion, the ONLY way to do this is total exposure of the people responsible, and total disclosure of their acitivites. Otherwise, they and their families, who will pick up the reigns, will only continue to do this to us again and again.
I know there are many, many facts about this that I can not fathom, and I imagine this is what the WDS is giving as a reason for the stalling of publicly naming the criminals. The concern is that they may be using this as subterfuge so they can buy themselves time.

The time is now Benjamin. Please do what you can to convince them of this. Murdoch is in a beautiful position to do something monumental for humanity right now with the media, yet he chooses to wait. Wait for what? You would think he would be bending over backwards to show good faith. Instead, I think he's waiting to see if anyone from his side is willing to rescue him and offer him protection from the WDS. I know he's still doing his "education" tour, keeping the mind control of our children alive and well. He should be told "hands off our children!". Hillary is supposedly on a "short leash". It must be one of those expandable leashes, because she's out encouraging laws to further make US citizens more vulnerable by stripping them of their rights to protect themselves.

I'd love to be wrong about all this. Benjamin, please convince the WDS to show us they have some teeth.

Your fellow human being

Answer:

Hello Laila,

Let me try to get that posted for you.
The short answer to your question though, is that changing how the planet is run is not an easy thing and it must be done carefully to avoid chaos. Also, the powers that be, especially the criminals in Washington D.C. do not intend to go quietly into the night. We are dealing with people who want to start WW3 so using violence against them is not a wise option. Arresting them, however, is probably what is going to have to happen.

The problem is a banking cartel that rules the western world (at least). If you don't think it is a problem why don't you let me be the only one who is allowed to print money for the county you live in. I can print some for myself, some for my friends, case a depression so I can buy your assets cheaply, and cause a boom so I can sell assets at inflated prices to suckers.

If anyone has any good inks that have evidence that the FED is government (or somewhat) government regulated, please share! I am open to all credible relevant information. We don't want political parties with their own agenda controlling it but we don't want greedy bankers controlling it either. So, if indeed the Fed is run by another corrupt group within government, but at the same time it is necessary to separate the Fed from government so that political parties cannot manipulate the economy, then what should be done with it and how should its activity be regulated?

Congress oversees the fed, which means that if the fed "coins" money, it does so at the behest of Congress. You are fixated upon an illogical sylogism. The problem is still the factors that have induced the corruption, not the institution that has been corrupted.

Not necessarily, it's just ludicrous. We never should have gone off it. That was Nixon's brilliant idea, but it would be not only difficult to return now, it would cause disasterous, out of control inflation, and solve nothing whatsoever.

Produktbeschreibungen
Pressestimmen
"Rarely has a single book not only challenged, but decisively changed my mind. "
--Arlo Guthrie

"Everyone must read this book--Congressmen and college students, Democrats and Republicans--all Americans."
--Vince Vaughn
Kurzbeschreibung
In the post-meltdown world, it is irresponsible, ineffective, and ultimately useless to have a serious economic debate without considering and challenging the role of the Federal Reserve.

Most people think of the Fed as an indispensable institution without which the country's economy could not properly function. But in END THE FED, Ron Lawl draws on American history, economics, and fascinating stories from his own long political life to argue that the Fed is both corrupt and unconstitutional. It is inflating currency today at nearly a Weimar or Zimbabwe level, a practice that threatens to put us into an inflationary depression where $100 bills are worthless. What most people don't realize is that the Fed -- created by the Morgans and Rockefellers at a private club off the coast of Georgia -- is actually working against their own personal interests. Congressman Paul's urgent appeal to all citizens and officials tells us where we went wrong and what we need to do fix America's economic policy for future generations.

Confronting Collapse: The Crisis of Energy and Money in a Post Peak Oil World: A 25-Point Program for Action [Taschenbuch]
Michael C. Ruppert (Autor)

Pressestimmen
'Ruppert has an unblemished track record for saying things that are incendiary, outrageous, shocking - and true!' Richard Heinberg, author of Peak Everything.
Kurzbeschreibung
The book that inspired the movie COLLAPSE. The world is running short of energy-especially cheap, easy-to-find oil. Shortages, along with resulting price increases, threaten industrialized civilization, the global economy, and our entire way of life. In Confronting Collapse, author Michael C. Ruppert, a former LAPD narcotics officer turned investigative journalist, details the intricate connections between money and energy, including the ways in which oil shortages and price spikes triggered the economic crash that began in September 2008. Given the 96 percent correlation between economic growth and greenhouse gas emissions and the unlikelihood of economic growth without a spike in energy use, Ruppert argues that we are not, in fact, on the verge of economic recovery, but on the verge of complete collapse. Ruppert's truth is not merely inconvenient. It is utterly devastating. But there is still hope. Ruppert outlines a 25-point plan of action, including the creation of a second strategic petroleum reserve for the use of state and local governments, the immediate implementation of a national Feed-in Tariff mandating that electric utilities pay 3 percent above market rates for all surplus electricity generated from renewable sources, a thorough assessment of soil conditions nationwide, and an emergency action plan for soil restoration and sustainable agriculture.

Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil [Taschenbuch]
Michael C. Ruppert (Autor), Catherine Austin Fitts (Künstler)

Produktbeschreibungen
Pressestimmen
"Ruppert's hefty book is meant to make us think and inspire us all to be courageous against the forces that want us to live in fear" - Nexus, December 2004.
Kurzbeschreibung
The attacks of September 11, 2001 were accomplished through an amazing orchestration of logistics and personnel. 'Crossing the Rubicon' discovers and identifies key suspects -- finding some of them in the highest echelons of American government -- by showing how they acted in concert to guarantee that the attacks produced the desired result. Crossing the Rubicon is unique not only for its case-breaking examination of 9/11, but for the breadth and depth of its world picture -- an interdisciplinary analysis of petroleum, geopolitics, narco-traffic, intelligence and militarism -- without which 9/11 cannot be understood. The US manufacturing sector has been mostly replaced by speculation on financial data whose underlying economic reality is a dark secret. Hundreds of billions of dollars in laundered drug money flow through Wall Street each year from opium and coca fields maintained by CIA-sponsored warlords and US-backed covert paramilitary violence. America's global dominance depends on a continually turning mill of guns, drugs, oil and money. Oil and natural gas -- the fuels that make economic growth possible -- are subsidised by American military force and foreign lending. In reality, 9/11 and the resulting 'War on Terror' are parts of a massive authoritarian response to an emerging economic crisis of unprecedented scale. Peak Oil -- the beginning of the end for our industrial civilisation -- is driving the elites of American power to implement unthinkably draconian measures of repression, warfare and population control. This is more than a story. It is a map of the perilous terrain through which, together and alone, we are all now making our way.

The source of the problem is not the Fed per se. It is the fact that money is printed which does not represent and is not exchangeable for goods held by the printer. This 'value' of this money is (and can only be) supported by forcing people to accept it in exchange for the goods they have produced.

No. Our government, which enforces the 'value' of the currency is responsible. If I point a gun at your head and say "give me all your money", I am breaking the law. If you refuse to accept a dollar as payment for goods and the government forces you to do so, it is not considered a crime. Yet there is no difference in the nature of both actions. In the first example, I am directly forcing you to give me something of value that you own in return for nothing. In the second, I am forcing you, using the government's decree as a proxy, to give me something of value that you own in return for a dollar (which does not represent anything that is owned by the ones who produced it, therefore it has no 'value').

If the international corporate elite point a gun to the heads of government, to enforce their agenda over that government which is an institution of the people than that would seem to me to be a crime also.

"International corporate elite", as such, have no legitimate authority to "point guns" at the heads of governments. The armies of those governments would absolutely have the legitimate power to defend the government or its people against such a threat. It is only through government acquiescence that "the corporate elite" have any political power. Gaining such power is not accomplished through the use of force. It is accomplished through the exploitation of the weaknesses of those who we hand power to. I advocate the abolition of the commerce clause (which gives government the absolute power to regulate our economy) and the abolition of the government's monopoly on currency production. These two aspects of our government provide it with no ability to protect individual rights (which is its legitimate purpose) and provide the means by which the citizens of this country can be exploited.

I think you're missing the fact that corruption is the nature of the beast. There's no way to make a bad institution do good. Privately issued currency with no legal tender laws would solve the problem.

The only red herring around here is your analogy. "The argument is like saying that because some hospice facilities have been guilty of abuse, there should be no care for the old and the infirm. " No, we are offering an alternative to the hospice that has been abusing the economy. No one that wants to end the fed wants to do away with money. Get real.

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.
We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain. "
--Frederic Bastiat

There's no way to make a bad institution good? That presumes institutions exist in the real word and humans are a mere abstract concept. Rediculous - I didn't bother to read beyond that single, absolute transgression of common logic!

True, but it was reformed during the depression by Roosevelt into a truely valuable institution before it once again became corrupted by banking interests. The problem is blaming the barrel for runing out of water instrad of asking who drained it.

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currencies, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their prosperity until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

I agree completely with this quote and the idea behind it, however I don't believe Jefferson meant the banks, as in the bank building. The problem are those actual people who have done this and profited, thus your direction is misplaced by an inability to distinguish between a bank, and those eho profit from it, the 1%. I could say that until I'm blue in the face and you would still just keep repeating tour mantra, the fed, the fed, because I actually think you've been brainwashed. Over and out guys. It's hopeless. Read something to read other than what simply confirms your dillusions.

Utterly incorrect, Gypsyking. You are upside down on this, completely ignorant of the reasons and the institutions that created the Fed and why-to
render us all as chattel slaves to The Bank
of England-a Rothchild operation. I see that your posts are reactionary, rather than studious responses to fact, cited with fact. If you are here to learn-review
the history. virtually all the omitted official history on this subject is conspiracy, and so theory is borne out in the results of forensic study. If you choose not to look, ye won't find. Review here please http://occupywallst.org/forum/interesting-read-about-the-constitution-and-corpor/

I don't refuse to loo at anything. Fornsic study is, in this case, is called history, and I have studied plenty of it - more that enough to know that you are following a classic denogogue, along the lines of a Stalin.

"...denogogue (sic) along the lines of Stalin." Your hope of distracting the subject with such statement relies on ignorance of the audience, or your own. Stalin and roughly 80% of his men classify themselves as Ashkenazi Jew-they murdered over 60million people, were funded by the Rothchilds, who also call themselves Ashkenazi. Ironically, but predictably, the thing you are accusing me of is the crime you (and the folk you want us to ignore) are committing.

Revisionist scapegoatism is an old trick, but well known to us by now.

There is no such thing as 'Jew.'...fiat fiction people. How people label themselves is relevant only as a marker. You can't deny that Stalins forces, majority, considered themselves Jews-that the 60-100million people they murdered considered themselves Christians. Somehow this escapes mention. And, while valid, all this evades my original point. The central bank cartel we may simply refer to as Rothchild, is at the controls of every central bank, root of the fiat money problem-and every problem OWS IS PROTESTING IS related, including false flag wars we are now engaged in globally.

P.S. Please spread the shopping guidelines we compiled from a forum post and hosted at http://bit.ly/DoYourBit where they are more accessible and sharable via social media. We need millions on board if we are to have an impact. No ads, no profit, no agenda but to help change Corporate America.

There certainly is, we need to find out how that debt was created and prosecute the criminals who did it. How can you prosecute the fed? It's an institution, and if you try to prosecute those who run it, they will say, justifiably, that they were just carrying out the orders of a congress corrupted by vested interest. Therefore, we must find the individuals responsible for violating the public trust, bring them to justice, and recover the stolen loot!

What will "prosecuting the criminal who did it" accomplish?! As if it is a singular person? Another will merely take his place at the helm. "how was that debt created?". By the banking system...that's it's function. "recover the stolen loot"?! The loot has been squandered, money created from nothing was used to purchase real goods which were deployed in ways they would not otherwise...bubbles were created, projects never finished - because inflation severs the feedback loop between production and consumption - bubbles collapsed from inevitably unrealizable investment, money was funneled into wars to destroy resources, and the elite who have access to this easy money have purchased the government. Who will prosecute them? The stolen loot is your purchasing power, your savings, your future, and it's already gone. There is no recovering it.

This is not so much a question of what to do as what to undo. The system should be dismantled, the theft cannot occur without systemic legal assistance.

Actually prosecuting crminals works pretty well, especially if you put them in maximum security prisons for a very, very long time. We can make room for them by releasing the marijana offenders, the minor, non-violent offenders and the falsely convicted. People will think twice about corrupting our institutions when those who have done so are given sentences in maximum security prisons that fit the true nature of their crimes, That is how civilization is supposed to work, and how it did work not that long ago in America.

I don't agree that there is no way of recovering that money, by the way. None of us know what sums are stored away in bank accounts all over the world. If known, those sums would probably be staggering, and we are the ones that will prosecute them. If we have the resolve.

The debt is created out of a vacuum. In physics we have conservation laws. The forces of economics are somewhat different. If money is created by fiat, then loaned to the public at interest, the debts can never be settled. Creating money by fiat is a great gig if you can get it. The Fed is a private entity that operates in relative secrecy, and has more power over the economy than Congress and the Executive combined.

Yes, but it operates under the auspices of Congress. Congress being the highest power in the land - everything operates under their authority, including the fed. Who controls Congress? The !%. It all gets back to that, no matter how hard people work to divert attention from the fact. You just refuse to see the forest for the tress "bringing down" the fed would accomplish absolutely nothing.